Verse 11.109

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

चतुर्थकालमश्नीयादक्षारलवणं मितम् ।
गोमूत्रेणाचरेत् स्नानं द्वौ मासौ नियतेन्द्रियः ॥ १०९ ॥

caturthakālamaśnīyādakṣāralavaṇaṃ mitam |
gomūtreṇācaret snānaṃ dvau māsau niyatendriyaḥ || 109 ||

For two months, with senses controlled, he shall eat a limited quantity of food, without any pungent salt, at the fourth meal-time; and shall bathe in cow’s urine.—(109)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘For two months’—he shall take his food once and then again only in the evening of the next day.

If we take the term ‘Kṣāra’—‘pungent’—as a qualification of ‘lavaṇa,’ ‘salt,’ we secure the prohibition of the rock-salt also. If the two terms were independent, the compound would be a copulative one, and this would mean the prohibition of ‘pungent substances’ also; and in that case it would be necessary to take the singular number as indirectly indicating the dual; as we have the copulative compound only, both the components are equally important at one and the same time. When however, the compound is taken as a ‘qualitative’ one (‘pungent’ being a qualification of the ‘salt’), we obtain a qualified denotation.

‘Limited’—small; i.e., that which, without producing full satisfaction, is enough to keep the body going.

‘Bathing in cow’s urine’ is to be done three times a day.

‘At the fourth meal-time’ is to be construed with ‘for two months.’

In another Smṛti we read—‘Having shaved his head, covered with the skin, he shall live in the cow-pen; end bathing in cow’s urine for two months has been prescribed for him; it is only the washing of the feet that he should do with water.’ In this it is not possible to connect the bathing in cow’s urine with the phrase ‘for two months.’ The mention of the feet is only for the purpose of filling up the metre; for, if any impurity happens to attach to the man’s feet during the time that he is bathing, it would naturally be washed with water only; as is clearly laid down by the rules of purification. Hence at the time of bathing, the rinsing of the mouth also should he done with water; at other times purification may be secured by the use of clay and other cleansing substances; and this would have to be done in the natural order—water being used after clay has been applied. And since cow’s urine has been prescribed for bathing only, what possibility would there be of its being used for the rinsing of the mouth or any such purpose? In connection with bathing, it is only as an expiation that the use of cow’s urine has been prescribed.—(109)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(verses 11.108-116)

See Explanatory notes for Verse 11.108.

 

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.108-116)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.108.